1

Technological and Spatial Analysis: Fuzzy Data Mining on the North Coast, Peru March 31, 2015, CAA 2015, Siena, Italy

Kayeleigh Sharp

Southern Illinois University, Carbondale (SIUC), Dept. of Anthropology, U.S.A. sharpka@siu.edu

Melissa Litschi Southern Illinois University, Carbondale (SIUC), Dept. of Anthropology, U.S.A. mlitschi@siu.edu

Abstract:

How can meaningful dimensions of social differentiation and complex social interrelationships be elucidated through archaeological data? Focusing on long-standing debates concerning the nature of Gallinazo (aka Virú) and Mochica (aka Moche) interrelationships during the first millennium, our long-term work has two key objectives: (1) to implement in-depth quantitative investigations of technological choices and activity patterns, and (2) to carry out high-level multivariate spatial data analysis to identify patterns and expose social asymmetries that may arise in situations of cultural coexistence.

We present preliminary findings from our integrated approach that combines quantitative and qualitative studies with spatial statistical analysis. Mixed-type data from various sources (GPS, pXRF, low-resolution microscopic, etc.) were integrated into our geodatabase and then used to identify technological constellations using a fuzzy taxonomic classification system. This system is based on technological rather than stylistic characteristics, and is useful in a broader range of applications (e.g., in studies that focus on standardization or the organization of production).

The resultant data will then be subjected to various data mining techniques to identify meaningful patterns and establish association rules that can be used to distinguish among a broader range of coexisting artifact assemblages. As our preliminary work shows, we have moved one step closer toward resolving critical debates concerning the Gallinazo-Mochica relationship by integrating high-powered tools borrowed from the geographic information and computer sciences. As a means for eliciting characteristics of social differentiation, the techniques applied herein have the capacity to generate nuanced feature classes within our geodatabase, which can then be used for higher-level spatial-statistical analyses.

The ultimate utility and efficacy of this integrated approach will be assessed based on the ability to detect patterned differences or similarities in the multivariate datasets generated through systematic excavations that are planned for the near future. In the meanwhile, the integrated approach we present has broader applicability for anthropologists working inside and outside of the Andes as a means by which to refine our vision of the past using state-of-the art archaeometric, spatial analysis and computer science techniques.

Keywords: GIS, fuzzy taxonomy, spatial analysis, geospatial data mining, archaeometry, technological

choices and activity patterns.

*All maps and images, unless otherwise specified are courtesy of Kayeleigh Sharp and Proyecto de

Investigación Arqueológica Zaña (PIAZ), Peru (2010-2015). Only for educational use, please cite

appropriately. ** Some content removed to protect copyrighted materials.

2

Introduction:

Critical to understanding the past are the relationships between stylistically (or visually) diverse artifact assemblages, the very real contexts of past social interactions, and the broader social relationships these imply. While our abilities to address complexities of the past are stronger than ever before, our exploration and application of new techniques lags behind in many regional studies including the north coast.

Slide 2: Our work centers on theoretical issues of archaeological identity (e.g., Díaz-Andreu et al. 2005; Gosselain 2000; Graves-Brown et al. 1996; Insoll 2006; Stark 1998) and the relationship between people and things (e.g., Appadurai 1986; Gosden and Marshall 1999; Hodder 2012; Hoskins 2006; Jones 2002) that reside at the core of contemporary anthropological and archaeological thought. How can meaningful dimensions of social differentiation and these complex social interrelationships be elucidated through our archaeological data? Might a merger with soft computing techniques hold any answers? This paper explores

our endeavor to implement in-depth quantitative analysis of ceramic artifacts, an area of investigation often restricted to descriptive characterizations or morphological studies on the Mochica. Rather than focusing on stylistic, morphological or descriptive analysis, our work concentrates on technological choices and activity patterns to aid in the clarification of uncertainties and in the elimination of the strong biases that have become entrenched over many decades as discussed below.

Slide 3: In North Coast studies, the poor understanding of Gallinazo and Mochica coexistence limits the potential for understanding axes of differentiation. This is an unfortunate by-product of early works that focused almost exclusively on Mochica elites and funerary contexts (e.g., Baessler 1902-03; Larco Hoyle 1938, 1945; Tello 1938; Uhle 1913, 1915). For the most part, archaeological work retains this bias today, emphasizing only a small portion of Mochica archaeological sites (Shimada 2010), and overlooking the complexities of social interrelationships between

the Gallinazo, Mochica, and other contemporary groups. While recent studies have begun to critically re-evaluate our wide-held and long-standing assumptions (Millaire 2009; Shimada and Maguiña 1994), many sites and regions remain underexplored. Thus, the social contexts artifacts pertaining to these groups continue to evade clear understanding.

Slide 4: Based primarily on the stylistic interpretation of Gallinazo- and Mochica-style artifacts and architecture, traditional views have long held that the Mochica: (1) developed from earlier Gallinazo cultural antecedents (Bennett 1939; Larco Hoyle 1945), (2) conquered and replaced ethnically Gallinazo populations (Willey 1953), or (3) all-together doubted the cultural distinction of Mochica and Gallinazo (Ubbelohde-Doering 1957). Today, evidence of interactions among divergent yet contemporaneous North Coast peoples (Kaulicke 1992), and of Gallinazo and Mochica groups who lived side-by-side and actively competed for

3

land and resources has forced a rethinking of these old ideas, yet the idea that the Gallinazo and Mochica were polar opposites still exists. Importantly, these views have been put forth without adequate study of non-funerary contexts, particularly in smaller settlements away from the capital. Largely lacking in studies of the Gallinazo more generally, is the systematic investigation of quotidian spaces where many of these artifacts have been observed. To add intrigue and complexity to this multi-layered problem, evidence of the Gallinazo-Mochica (ca. 100-800 CE) coexistence is present at many Early Intermediate Period (ca. 200 BCE-600 CE) sites, that still go overlooked. **

Slide 18-19: One of these is the site of Songoy-Cojal which is the focus of our long-term research.

Slide 20: New data from our preliminary fieldworks which focused on the collection of surface ceramics from both residential and funerary contexts, have revealed a much wider qualitative variation in Gallinazo ceramics than previously known. This critical finding has forced our reformulation of conventional models and ways of studying Gallinazo and Mochica coexistence as we now find them inadequate for addressing the new-found complexities of our data. **

Slide 23: Our solution for studying such diversity combines the study of technological choices and activity patterns using a suite of well-established archaeometric (e.g., Glascock and Neff 2003; Malainey 2011; Pollard et al. 2007; Shugar and Mass 2012; Sillar and Tite 2000) and spatial analysis (Fischer and Getis 2010; Fotheringham et al. 2002) techniques to extract characteristics of interrelationships between potentially diverse, yet coexisting archaeological groups. The investigation of ‘technological choices’ provides an excellent alternative to traditional studies of style in

material culture (some important examples include: Childs 1991; Chilton 1999; Gosselain 1992; Herva and Nurmi 2009; Lechtman 1977; Lemonnier 1986, 1993; Pfaffenberger 1992; Schiffer 2001; Shimada and Craig 2013). Attendant to this, the study of archaeological households, activities and their spatial dimensions provide a means by which to access underlying material and behavioral patterns, options and constraints (see Aldenderfer 1993; e.g., Ames 1995; Costin 2001; Deetz 1982; Feinman 1999; Hegmon 1998; Hillier and Hanson 1984; Kent 1984, 1990; Nash 2009; Rapoport 1969, 1990; Tringham

4

1995), and the transformation of technological choices or ideas into material existence (Dobres and Hoffman 1999; Sillar and Tite 2000). While Gallinazo ceramics are commonly classified as either fine negative (presumably funerary) or Castillo decorated domestic-ware varieties, the reality is far more complex which has been illustrated visually in previous slides and is outlined quantitatively in the table. Although some data are incomplete, we followed Reedy and Reedy’s (1994) model to study technological choices in material cultural on three different levels (i.e., visual, techno-visual and purely technical), some of which are readily visible and others that remain invisible to the naked eye. By studying three technological dimensions of objects it is thus possible to identify meaningful suites of situationally-selected technological choices in the material record.

Slide 24: In the present work, we focus on visual and techno-visual technological choices that are fundamentally non-essential components of the chaîne opératoire (Lemonnier 1986, 1993; Reedy and Reedy 1994), which may influence the performance quality of artifacts (Schiffer and Skibo 1997), or be indicative of habitus and identity (Jones 1997). These include: how decorations were made (e.g., punctate or paint), paint color, exterior surface treatment, modeled vs. stamped designs, or rim lip shape, temper size and profile shape. We adopt this approach

as a means of moving beyond descriptive artifact-centered approaches and to make the data commensurable with complementary resources. Unlike many traditional applications of GIS in archaeology, which focus mainly on spatial distributions of metric data, our approach is designed to address anthropological questions such as those concerning the how activities were carried out by groups of individuals in the past, or even what types of social identity expression might be observed through archaeological investigation of spatial and non-spatial data using rule-based query systems (e.g., Bi et al. 2008; Chen et al. 2000; Khan et al. 2011; Smith et al. 2014) and clustering algorithms such as K-means (MacQueen 1967), or fuzzy c means or FCM (Bezdek 1981; Miniakhmetov 2011) which allows one piece of data to belong to multiple clusters (DIEB 2014). As such, the research design is a significant departure from traditional case studies that are fundamentally artifact-centered and typologically-conceptualized.

Slide 25: Because of the nature of the data at hand, there was a need to adopt great flexibility within the research design, in order to incorporate different datasets. From the onset, it has been recognized that the stylistic characterization of artifacts, which is fundamentally descriptive in nature, is insufficient for discerning how axes of social differentiation are represented archaeologically and equally unsatisfactory for identifying social interactions among or between them. However, it is also recognized that such descriptions are quite analytically meaningful. This is significant as

traditional artifact classification systems rely almost solely on the descriptive characterization of artifact attributes, to explore similarities and differences. Style and technology are, however, more nuanced and dynamic. In this regard analytical methods based on the concept of fuzzy logic is useful.

In its original form, Lofti Zadeh’s (1965) fuzzy logic computing permits the exploration of such

descriptions in terms of degrees of membership rather than binary oppositions. This gives meaning and

5

significance to characteristics that directly as well as only partially, fit into one category or another.

With the ability to analyze degrees of membership, rather than binary oppositions, it is possible to speak

quantitatively about phenomena such as hybridized decorations, the partial borrowing of technologies,

the variability (or standardization) of manufacturing and even the outcomes of ‘stylistic’ or cultural

coexistence. With the implementation of a classification system which is inherently Fuzzy in nature, we

now have a means of quantifying choices, producing data from which to address the interplay between

things and people, and compare them to other lines of complementary data.

Slide 26: We adopted a relatively simplistic strategy borrowed

from ecology, to measure degrees of membership of technological

attributes in the archaeological record. Nominal (or categorical)

data on ceramic technology was assigned a degree of membership

by calculating matching coefficients which are generally used to

measure the closeness or diversity of relationships of nominal

variables (Qu and Zhang 2008:2), such as plant or animal species in

a given environment or area. The Jaccard index (Jaccard 1912; see

also http://ag.arizona.edu/classes/rnr555/ lecnotes/10.html), and

other types of similarity indices, can be easily adapted to assess variability archaeological contexts. In

this initial step, we calculated the matching coefficient (or Jaccard’s coefficient) to explore similarities

and differences between Gallinazo and Mochica technological attributes.

Slide 27: This map shows the estimated position of 195 ceramic

artifacts, collected from the surface of the residential sector of

Songoy-Cojal. In this visualization, ceramic artifacts were mapped

using traditional typological attributes (i.e., iconography). The

index of diversity was calculated for frequency counts of each

typological category using the Bray-Curtis index to compare the

samples. Based on the iconographic data alone, it is difficult to

identify meaningful patterns in spatial contexts and the more

subtle technological variations are obscured.

Slide 28: In the second map, averaged matching coefficients for

the same 195 ceramic fragments are visualized. Descriptive data

have been converted into a format that is meaningful in the

contexts of spatial-statistical analysis. The assignment of

matching coefficients numerically identifies the relationship

among variables, making it possible to explore the degree of

technological similarities, differences and overlap in each

architectural unit. It is also possible to understand precisely which

attributes contribute most to distinguishing one technological

suite from another, and mine for meaningful association rules. The key advantage of using the fuzzy

6

classification system is that seemingly incommensurable nominal (or descriptive data) can be analyzed

in conjunction with other lines of complementary quantitative or semi-quantitative (e.g., INAA, pXRF)

and other metrical data, adding a detailed richness to the interpretation of technological choices.

Slide 29: While the persistent debate as to the nature of the

Gallinazo-Mochica coexistence has been heavily shaped by a

series of major biases and an overly simplistic dichotomous

perspective, there is far greater variability in Gallinazo ceramics

than previously recognized. Resolution of the debate calls for a

new approach that integrates multiple lines of evidence including

technological choice, archaeometric data, activities and their

spatial dimensions. Importantly, style and technology are not

binary but instead nuanced and dynamic which demands that we

study data with all its appropriate nuances. With this in mind, approaches which are designed to

explore uncertainty and relationships between datasets are appropriate and valuable. As our work

shows, the application of a fuzzy classification system reveals nuanced similarities and differences in the

north coast ceramic data that more closely approximate the observed technological diversity in the

artifacts under study. Ultimately, the approach advocated here holds much potential to be broadly

applied. The next step will be the implementation of our approach, integrating archaeometric data with

technological choice data derived from systematic excavations that are scheduled for 2015.

7

References Cited

Aldenderfer, Mark S. 1993 Domestic Architecture, Ethnicity, and

Complementarity in the South-Central Andes. University of Iowa Press, Iowa City.

Ames, Kenneth M. 1995 Chiefly Power and Household Production on

the Northwest Coast. In Foundations of Social Inequality, edited by Douglas Price and Gary Feinman, pp. 155-187. Springer, New York.

Appadurai, Arjun 1986 The Social Life of Things : Commodities in

Cultural Perspective. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Cambridgeshire ; New York.

Baessler, Arthur 1902-03 Ancient Peruvian Art: Contributions to the

Archaeology of the Empire of the Incas. Translated by A. H. Keane. 4 vols, Berlin and New York.

Bennett, Wendell Clark 1939 Archaeology of the North Coast of Peru; an

Account of Exploration and Excavation in Viru and Lambayeque Valleys. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History. Vol. Xxxvii, Pt. I. American Museum of Natural History, New York,.

Bezdek, J. C. 1981 Pattern Recognition with Fuzzy Objective

Function Algoritms. Plenum Press, New York.

Bi, Shuoben, Xue Shengjun, Xu Yin and Pei Anping 2008 Spatial Data Mining in Settlement

Archaeological Databases Based on Vector Features. Proceedings of the Fuzzy Systems and Knowledge Discovery, 2008. FSKD '08. Fifth International Conference on 4:277-281.

Chen, Guoquing, Qiang Wei and Etienne E. Kerre 2000 Fuzzy Data Mining: Discovery of Fuzzy

Generalized Association Rules. In Recent Issues on Fuzzy Databases, edited by Gloria Bordogna and Gabriella Pasi, pp. 45-66. Physica-Verlag, A Springer-Verlag Company, Warsaw.

Childs, S. Terry 1991 Style, Technology, and Iron Smelting

Furnaces in Bantu-Speaking Africa. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 10:332-359.

Chilton, Elizabeth S.

1999 Material Meanings and Meaningful Materials: An Introduction. In Foundations of Archaeological Inquiry: Material Meanings : Critical Approaches to the Interpretation of Material Culture, edited by Elizabeth S. Chilton, pp. 1-6. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Costin, Cathy L. 2001 Production and Exchange of Ceramics. In

Empire and Domestic Economy, edited by T. D'Altroy and C. Hastorf and Associates, pp. 203-242. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York.

Deetz, James 1982 Households: A Structural Key to

Archaeological Explanation. American Behavioral Scientist 25(6):714-724.

Díaz-Andreu, Margarita García, Sam Lucy, Babié Stasa and David N. Edwards

2005 The Archaeology of Identity: Approaches to Gender, Age, Status, Ethnicity and Religion. Routledge, Oxon OX, New York.

DIEB, Dipartimento di Elettronica, Informazione e Bioingegneria

2014 Fuzzy C-Means Clustering. A Tutorial on Clustering Algorithms. Electronic Document http://home.deib.polimi.it/matteucc/Clustering/tutorial_html/cmeans.html. accessed September 3, 2014.

Dobres, Marcia-Anne and Christopher R. Hoffman 1999 The Social Dynamics of Technology :

Practice, Politics, and World Views. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington.

Feinman, Gary 1999 Rethinking Our Assumptions: Economic

Specialization at the Household Scale in Ancient Ejutla, Oaxaca, Mexico. In Pottery and People: A Dynamic Interaction, edited by James Skibo and Gary Feinman, pp. 81-98. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Fischer, Manfred M. and Arthur Getis 2010 Handbook of Applied Spatial Analysis :

Software Tools, Methods and Applications. Springer, Berlin ; New York.

Fotheringham, A. Stewart, Chris Brunsdon and Martin Charlton

2002 Geographically Weighted Regression : The Analysis of Spatially Varying Relationships. Wiley, Chichester, England ; Hoboken, NJ, USA.

8

Glascock, Michael D. and Hector Neff 2003 Neutron Activation Analysis and

Provenance Research in Archaeology. Measurement Science and Technology 14:1516-1526.

Gosden, Chris and Yvonne Marshall 1999 The Cultural Biography of Objects. World

Archaeology 31(2):169-178. Gosselain, Olivier P. 1992 Technology and Style: Potters and Pottery

among Bafia of Camerron. Man 27(3):559-586.

2000 Materializing Identities: An African Perspective. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 7(3):187-217.

Graves-Brown, P., S. Jones and Clive Gamble 1996 Cultural Identity and Archaeology : The

Construction of European Communities. Theoretical Archaeology Group (Tag). Routledge, London ; New York.

Hegmon, Michelle 1998 Technology,Style, and Social Practices:

Archaeological Approaches. In The Archaeology of Social Boundaries, edited by Miriam T. Stark, pp. 264-279. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Herva, Vesa-Pekka and Risto Nurmi 2009 Beyond Consumption: Functionality,

Artifact Biography, and Early Modernity in a European Periphery. International Journal of Historical Archaeology 13(2):158-182.

Hillier, Bill and Julienne Hanson 1984 The Social Logic of Space. Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge Cambridgeshire ; New York.

Hodder, Ian 2012 Entangled : An Archaeology of the

Relationships between Humans and Things. Wiley-Blackwell, Malden, MA.

Hoskins, Janet 2006 Agency, Biography and Objects. In

Handbook of Material Culture, edited by Christopher Y. Tilley, Webb Keane, Susan Kuchler, Patricia Spyer, Michael Rowlands, pp. 74-84. SAGE Publications Ltd., London.

Insoll, Timothy 2006 The Archaeology of Identities : A Reader.

Routledge, New York. Jaccard, Paul 1912 The Distribution of the Flora of the Alpine

Zone. New Phytologist 11(11):37-50. Jones, Andrew

2002 Archaeological Theory and Scientific Practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge ; New York.

Jones, Sian 1997 The Archaeology of Ethnicity : Constructing

Identities in the Past and Present. Routledge, London ; New York.

Kaulicke, Peter 1992 Moche, Vicus Moche Y El Mochica

Temprano. Bulletin de I'Institut Fntnfais d'Etudes Andines 21(3):853-903.

Kent, Susan 1984 Analyzing Activity Areas : An

Ethnoarchaeological Study of the Use of Space. 1st ed. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

1990 A Cross-Cultural Study of Segmentation, Architecture, and the Use of Space. In Domestic Architecture and the Use of Space : An Interdisciplinary Cross-Cultural Study, edited by Susan Kent, pp. 127-152. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge England ; New York.

Khan, M. Sulaiman , Maybin Muyeba, Frans Coenen, David Reid and Hissam Tawfik

2011 Finding Associations in Composite Data Sets: The Cfarm Algorithm.

Larco Hoyle, Rafael 1938 Lós Mochicas. Casa editora "La Crónica" y

"Variedades", s. a. ltda., Lima,. 1945 Los Mochicas (Pre-Chimu, De Uhle Y Early

Chimu, De Kroeber). Sociedad Geográfica Americana, Buenos Aires.

Lechtman, Heather 1977 Style in Technology - Some Early Thoughts.

In Material Culture: Styles, Organization, and Dynamics of Technology, edited by Heather Lechtman and R. S. Merril, pp. 3-20. West Publishing Co., St. Paul.

Lemonnier, Pierre 1986 The Study of Material Culture Today:

Toward an Anthropology of Technical Systems. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 5:147-186.

1993 Technological Choices : Transformation in Material Cultures since the Neolithic. Material Cultures. Routledge, London ; New York.

MacQueen 1967 Some Methods for Classification and

Analysis of Multivariate Observations. Proceedings of the Proceedings of 5-th Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical

9

Statistics and Probability 1:281-297. Berkeley.

Malainey, Mary E. 2011 A Consumer's Guide to Archaeological

Science : Analytical Techniques. Manuals in Archaeological Method, Theory and Technique. Springer, New York.

Millaire, Jean-François 2009 Gallinazo and the Tradicion Norcostena. In

Gallinazo : An Early Cultural Tradition on the Peruvian North Coast, edited by Jean-François Millaire and Magali Morlion, pp. 1-16. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press, Los Angeles.

Miniakhmetov, Ruslan 2011 Integrating Fuzzy C-Means Clustering with

Postgresql. Electronic Document http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-735/paper2.pdf. accessed October, 25, 2014.

Nash, Donna J. 2009 Household Archaeology in the Andes.

Journal of Archaeological Research 17:205-261.

Pfaffenberger, Bryan 1992 Social Anthropology of Technology. Annual

Review of Anthropology 21:491-516. Pollard, A. M., C. M. Batt, B. Stern and S. M. M.

Young (editors) 2007 Analytical Chemistry in Archaeology.

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Qu, Xiaohui and Guohua Zhang 2008 Measuring the Convergence of National

Accounting Standards with International Financial Reporting Standards: The Application of Fuzzy Clustering Analysis. Electronic Document http://ssrn.com/abstract=1295884. accessed 26 Feb, 2015.

Rapoport, Amos 1969 House Form and Culture. Foundations of

Cultural Geography Series. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.,.

1990 Systems of Activities and Systems of Settings. In Domestic Architecture and the Use of Space : An Interdisciplinary Cross-Cultural Study, edited by Susan Kent, pp. 9-20. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge England ; New York.

Reedy, Chandra L. and Terry J. Reedy 1994 Relating Visual and Technological Styles in

Tibetan Sculpture Analysis. World Archaeology 25(3):304-320.

Schiffer, Michael B.

2001 Anthropological Perspectives on Technology. 1st ed. Amerind Foundation New World Studies Series No. 5. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Schiffer, Michael B. and James M. Skibo 1997 The Explanation of Artifact Variability.

American Antiquity 62(1):27-50. Shimada, Izumi 2010 Moche Sociopolitical Organization:

Rethinking the Data, Approaches, and Models. In New Perspectives on Moche Political Organization, edited by Jeffrey Quilter and Luis Jaime Castillo B, pp. 70-82. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, Washington, D.C.

Shimada, Izumi and Alan K. Craig 2013 The Style, Technology and Organization of

Sicán Mining and Metallurgy, Northern Peru: Insights from Holistic Study. Chungara, Revista de Antropología Chilena 45(1):3-31.

Shimada, Izumi and Adriana Maguiña 1994 Nueva Visión Sobre La Cultura Gallinazo Y

Su Relación Con La Cultura Moche. In Moche: Propuestas Y Perspectivas, edited by Santiago Uceda and Elias Mujica, pp. 31-58. Universidad Nacional de La Libertad, Trujillo.

Shugar, Aaron and Jennifer L. Mass (editors) 2012 Handheld Xrf for Art and Archaeology.

Leuven University Press, Leuevn, Belgium. Sillar, B. and M. S. Tite 2000 The Challenge of 'Technological Choices' for

Materials Sciences Approaches in Archaeology. Archaeometry 42(1):2-20.

Smith, NeilG, Avshalom Karasik, Tejaswini Narayanan, EricS Olson, Uzy Smilansky and ThomasE Levy

2014 The Pottery Informatics Query Database: A New Method for Mathematic and Quantitative Analyses of Large Regional Ceramic Datasets. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 21(1):212-250.

Stark, Miriam T. 1998 The Archaeology of Social Boundaries.

Smithsonian Series in Archaeological Inquiry. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Tello, Julio C. 1938 Arte Antiguo Peruano: Album Fotográfico

De Las Principales Especies Arqueológicas De Cerámica Muchik Existentes En Los

10

Museos De Lima, Primera Parte: Tecnología Y Morfología Inca 2: VII-LXII, Lima.

Tringham, Ruth 1995 Archaeological Houses, Households,

Housework and the Home. In The Home : Words, Interpretations, Meanings and Environments, edited by David N. Benjamin, David Stea and Eje Aren, pp. 79-107. Avebury, Aldershot ; Brookfield, Vt.

Ubbelohde-Doering, Heinrich 1957 Der Gallinazo-Stil Und Die Chronologie Der

Altperuanischen Frühkulteren. Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, in Kommission bei Beck, München,.

Uhle, Friedrich Max 1913 Die Ruinen Von Moche. Journal de La

Societe des Amencanistes de Paris, n.s. 10:95-117.

1915 Las Ruinas De Moche. Boletin de la Sociedad Geográfica de Lima 30((3-4)):57-71.

Willey, Gordon R. 1953 Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in the Virù

Valley, Peru. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 155. . Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC.

Zadeh, Lotfi 1965 Fuzzy Sets. Information and Control 8:338-

353.

Key topics:1. Background: The persistent debate as to the nature of the

Gallinazo-Mochica coexistence has been heavily shaped by a

series of major biases and an overly simplistic dichotomous

perspectives;

2. Challenges we face: Old interpretations but new data which

challenges previous assumptions;

3. Approach: Resolution of the debate calls for a new approach

that integrate multiple lines of evidence including technological

choice, activities and their spatial dimensions;

4. Position: Style and technology are not binary but instead

nuanced and dynamic

5. Application: Some preliminary findings of our multi-year research

project that might be applicable in other research contexts

6. Future Direction

2Geomatics Approaches in Latin American Archaeology: the State-of-the-Art in Spatial Archaeology, Kayeleigh Sharp (sharpka@siu.edu)

Foundational Questions and Concerns About

the Gallinazo and Mochica, North Coast, Peru

3

Gallinazo(ca. 200 BCE – 700/800? CE)

Mochica(ca. 100 –800 CE)

http://discover.odai.yale.edu/

How can meaningful

dimensions of social

differentiation or the

complexities of social

interrelationships be

elucidated through our

archaeological data?

http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/works-of-art/1983.546.6

Geomatics Approaches in Latin American Archaeology: the State-of-the-Art in Spatial Archaeology, Kayeleigh Sharp (sharpka@siu.edu)

Background: The Gallinazo and Mochica:

Problem of Social/Political Designation

Throughout the first millennium, the Gallinazo and Mochica coexisted on Peru’s north coast

This has led to considerable debates over the nature of Gallinazo as an ethnic, political or even distinct social group

4

Principle Huaca

Songoy resembles

Castillo de Tomoval

Configuration at

Gallinazo capital

Evidence of

coexistence in the

residential sector

Songoy/Cojal Test CaseHuaca Songoy

Residential

Sector

18

Looking for settings where the two ceramic styles coexist and where they are mutually exclusive

Practice-oriented perspective

Choices people make in doing things

Testing the

Competing Views in

the Residential

Sector

19

Residential

Sector

Meters

Recent Findings:

High-quality fine

wares of both

Gallinazo and

Mochica style

20

23

Suites of

Technological

Choices +

Activity Patterns

1. Addressing the primary questions of similarity, difference and convergence among technological attributes

2. The data are nominal and multivariate

3. Continuous rather than separate and distinct

24

Some key differences and similarities between crisp and

fuzzy sets, a classic example:

25

Figures from:

http://www.mathworks.com/help/fuzzy/fou

ndations-of-fuzzy-logic.html

26

(after Qu and Zhang 2008; and also Jaccard 1912)

27

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Similarity

PQUALfinlinEXTprssEXTpunchEXTpuncEXTstrwSFCpurple

PNTbrown-dkMODstampedVESbotSMHpolishVESmldPNTred-orange

SFCverydkgreyMODindSMHindSFCreddishFIRdkcorSMHrough

VESfigVESscuFIRbrnFIRredPFShemiRIMsquareVESgrt

APPotherPQUALdippedPFSotherSFCgreyCOTindRIMind

VESurnSMHburnishSFCbrownSFCburntGRNindPQUALrimpt

VESpotVESbwlEXTgpuEXTinsorgouPFSundMODhandmodeledAPPdecor

SFCorangeVESotherRIMflattenedPFSexpRIMtaperedCOTunc

FIRincRIMroundedPFSstrGRNmedSMHwipePFSincurv

RIMirregularGRNfinPFSindRIMnotrimPNTcream-beigePQUALbodydecSFCcream_ltbrown

FIRoxiSMHsmoothedCOTwshVESjarGRNcoarseCOTslp

MODunmPNTnopPQUALnopAPPnoaEXTnoxMODmoldmade

28

0.3

2

0.4

0

0.4

8

0.5

6

0.6

4

0.7

2

0.8

0

0.8

8

0.9

6Similarity

COTslp

RIMtpr

EXTins

SMHwipe

EXTpunch

SMHsmoothed

COTunc

PFSexp

PFSsculp

PQUALdipped

RIMbvl

RIMlipped

RIMnotrim

GRNfin

SFCbrown

EXTgou

MODmld

APPeye

APPmodlug

APPnos

EXTpunc

MODstp

PFSfla

PFShemi

PFSincurv

PNTbrown-dk

PQUALbl

PQUALfl

PQUALsloppy

SFCgrey

SFCpurple

SFCverydkgrey

SMHpolish

EXTnox

PNTcream-beige

PFSdblinflx

PFSund

SFCburnt

APPnoa

MODmodled

PQUALstripe

PQUALarea

PQUALrimpt

APPother

GRNmed

PNTnop

PQUALnop

SFCorange

COTwsh

MODunm

RIMfla

SMHburnish

SFCltbrown

APPear

GRNcoarse

SFCcream

PFSstr

RIMrnd

SMHrough

PNTred-orange

RIMsqare

Closing Remarks:

1. Disparate datasets coming together for high-resolution analysis.

2. The persistent debate as to the nature of the Gallinazo-Mochica coexistence has been heavily shaped by a series of major biases and an overly simplistic dichotomous perspective;

3. There is a much greater variability in Gallinazo ceramics than previously recognized;

4. Resolution of the debate calls for a new approach that integrate multiple lines of evidence including technological choice, activities and their spatial dimensions;

5. Style and technology are not binary but instead nuanced and dynamic;

6. Approaches based on the fuzzy logic are appropriate and valuable;

7. Application of our approach reveals more nuanced similarities and differences in the north coast ceramic data, which more closely approximates the technological diversity observed in the artifacts under study.

8. The approach advocated here holds much potential to be broadly applied.

9. Future direction: Integration with high-precision archaeometric and excavation data, scheduled for 2015

29